ExpandCollapse

Active Member

It has often been said that if you're adept at the biblical languages that you should use a freer translation like the NIV or NLTse or even the NET. But two profs of mine thought otherwise.

Click to expand...

I would say the freer translations would be more suitable for those less adept at the original languages.

More formal or literal translations focus on word translation and tend to preserve the word order, grammar and sentence structure of the original languages. Modern day languages like modern english often have very different grammatical rules so preserving the word order and grammar of the originals makes for very foreign reading to the average modern reader and often leads to loss of meaning or misunderstanding. Those with experience in biblical Hebrew and Greek along with the grammar and sentence structure of those languages tend to have less difficulty with more formal translations.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

1. I cannot begin to tell you how many versions of the Bible there are out there (Rippon might be able to tell you)...

Click to expand...

One reason that there is not a single concrete number of English versions of the Bible is that there is not standard guidelines as to what should be counted, and what should not. What constitutes a 'bible' volume? The 22 (our 27) books of the Hebrew Tanahk is the entire Jewish scriptures. So, many 'bible' counts enumerate both "Old" and "New" testaments individually. Should a partial testament count? The five books of the Pentateuch is the entire Samaritan scriptures. Should the many abbreviated/abridged versions of the 'bible'count? And then, some texts have been marketed under several different names (I count 'em as just one text). So, any number must be qualified as to what it actually represents. I can confirm about 200 unique English texts of the Christian New Testament published in print since 1900.

TCGreek said:

2. Each version uses a particular translation philosophy and tend to target a particular market, so there's no one version to fit every one...

Click to expand...

The translation philosophy doesn't bother me as much as the question of underlying original language text. Looking only at the NT: either the Greek Byzantine (TR/MT) text has added to the words of God, or the Greek Alexandrian (UBS/N-A) text has omitted words. Of course, both of these textual traditions could be guilty of interpolations and subtractions, but certainly they cannot both represent the precise original.

I have witnessed statements like: "I prefer the NASB, but the KJV is a good translation too" (or sometimes vice-versa). However, this reminds me of the Muslim postion on who Jesus was. They'll say: "Jesus was a good prophet, but he was not God." But that is a self-refuting statement! Jesus emphatically said He was God, and if Islam does not accept that as true, then they cannot logically also claim he is a good prophet (because his claim would have been a false one). In the case of biblical text, it cannot be logically accepted that both/all texts are complete and pure.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

In the case of biblical text, it cannot be logically accepted that both/all texts are complete and pure.

Click to expand...

The uncertainty around manuscripts is why modern translators and scholars use a blend manuscript with both "Alexandrian" and "Byzantine" manuscripts as their base text. The N-A is not strictly "Alexandrian".

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

I have witnessed statements like: "I prefer the NASB, but the KJV is a good translation too" (or sometimes vice-versa). However, this reminds me of the Muslim postion on who Jesus was. They'll say: "Jesus was a good prophet, but he was not God." But that is a self-refuting statement! Jesus emphatically said He was God, and if Islam does not accept that as true, then they cannot logically also claim he is a good prophet (because his claim would have been a false one). In the case of biblical text, it cannot be logically accepted that both/all texts are complete and pure.

Click to expand...

FM , your analogy is not a fair one , to say the least . One who prefers the KJV and another who prefers the NASB version is a world away from person 'A' saying Jesus is God , and person 'B' saying he was just a prophet ! These cases are not in the least parallels .

The doctrines and truths expressed in the KJV are identical with the doctrines and truths conveyed in the NASB .

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

... One who prefers the KJV and another who prefers the NASB version is a world away from person 'A' saying Jesus is God , and person 'B' saying he was just a prophet !...

Click to expand...

I do not know how you went wrong, but the above is a misrepresentation of what I actually posted. In the first part you paraphrase (fair and in reverse) my hypothetical "I prefer the NASB, but the KJV is a good translation too" statement. However, you attribute the statement divided by two individuals; I portrayed the complete quote as being from single source.

Your second part does not reflect what I wrote (nor what I intended) either. I phrased the Muslim position thus: "Jesus was a good prophet, but he was not God." This is the basic Islamic point-of-view. Again, there are not two persons speaking here (an 'A' and a 'B' person). Another clue would have been that I said it was "self-refuting". Perhaps compounding the error is that you wrote "Jesus is God" (where the original was in the negative: "he was not God"). I'm not sure if you can clear this up.

The point was that two contradictory things cannot be both true (at the same time and in the same way). Do believers need to come to grips with the fact that at least one of the texts is not complete and pure?

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

The point was that two contradictory things cannot be both true (at the same time and in the same way). Do believers need to come to grips with the fact that at least one of the texts is not complete and pure?

Click to expand...

The reality is that no translation is made with a complete and pure manuscript. The KJV was based on a version of the "Textus Receptus" that was the result of a compilation of several contradicting partial manuscripts.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

The initial versions of the TR compiled by Erasmus (5 versions by him) was a compilation of manuscripts 1r, 2e and 2ap with some consultation with 1eap, 4ap and 7p. e=gospels (evangel), a=acts, p=pauline letters, r=revelation. Future versions of the TR were variations of Erasmus' work by Estienne, Beza, the Elzevirs and others with input from other manuscripts.

The initial TR used by the KJV translators was mainly two different versions of the TR by Theodore Beza (1598 and 1588/89). Scrivener identified 190 places where the KJV translators departed from those two versions of the TR. Variations within the Received Text Tradition

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Show us that "reality" there is no translation is made with a complete and pure manuscript?

All I see is pure conjecture.

The translators most certainly had good reason for "departing" from Erasmus' and Beza's for clarification purposes. I believe that reason is to keep the harmony of the Scripture without departing into a realm of dogma that eventually is proven to be biased.

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!